Santosh Hegde, J.— The appellant is a composite unit engaged in the manufacture of man-made fabric falling under the erstwhile Tariff Head 18-III/18-E/22 and Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the above process, it manufactures single ply yarn which is then used in doubling or multifolding the same in a continuous process in their factory. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay Central excise duty on the manufacture of the single ply yarn or at the stage when the single ply yarn is converted into double ply yarn/multifold yarn when the same is cleared from the factory. The stand of the Revenue is that on the manufacture of the single ply yarn the same is exigible to duty, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty at that stage. The appellant contends that the single ply yarn manufactured by it is not cleared from its factory but is used in a continuous process in converting the same into a double or multifold yarn. Therefore, it is liable to pay duty at the stage when so finished double or multifold yarn is cleared from the factory. The authorities under the Act have negatived the said claim of the appellant and have demanded the duty to be paid at the stage when single ply yarn is manufactured by the appellant, obviously because the rate of duty at that stage on the relevant date was more than what the appellant would have to pay when it cleared as double or multifold yarn from its factory.
2. The Tribunal in appeal filed by the appellant rejected the said appeal basing its finding on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. v. CCE 1995 Supp (4) SCC 644, (1996) 82 ELT 442 and CCE v. Banswara Syntex Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 55, (1996) 88 ELT 645 The Tribunal also held that it has been following these judgments in many other identical cases including that of one of the appellants before it and it found no reason to differ from its consistent view on this question.
3. In this appeal before us Mr D.A Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants fairly conceded that the case of the appellant is covered against it by the abovecited two judgments. He, however, sought to place reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of CCE v. Polyset Corpn. (2000) 10 SCC 241, (2000) 115 ELT 41 and tried to persuade us to refer this issue to a larger Bench contending that in view of the judgment of this Court in Polyset Corpn. (2000) 10 SCC 241, (2000) 115 ELT 41 the earlier view of this Court in the case of Bhilwara 1995 Supp (4) SCC 644, (1996) 82 ELT 442 as well as Banswara Syntex (1996) 11 SCC 55, (1996) 88 ELT 645 requires reconsideration.
4. We have carefully gone through the abovecited judgment and find no reason to agree with the contention of Mr Dave. Though this Court in the case of Polyset Corpn. (2000) 10 SCC 241, (2000) 115 ELT 41 following an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE (1989) 4 SCC 592, (1989) 44 ELT 598 held:
“Excise is a duty on manufacture or production. But the realisation of the duty may be postponed for administrative convenience to the date of removal of goods from the factory. … We are of the opinion that even though the taxable event is the manufacture or the production of an excisable article, the duty can be levied and collected at a later date for administrative convenience.” (Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE (1989) 4 SCC 592, (1989) 44 ELT 598 & 595, para 4)
The said principle cannot be applied to the facts of the case in these appeals.
5. In the case of Banswara Syntex (1996) 11 SCC 55, (1996) 88 ELT 645 a three-Judge Bench of this Court dealing with identical issue as is involved in this appeal held:( & 57, para 8)
“A single ply yarn is first manufactured and thereafter it is doubled or multifolded, depending upon the type of fabric which is ultimately to be woven. The liability to pay excise duty would arise on the manufacture of the single ply yarn and not after the same has been doubled or multifolded. Doubling or multifolding of the same yarn does not bring into existence a new produce and no duty is leviable at that stage.”
“It is immaterial, in view of Rules 9(1) and 49 of the Central Excise Rules whether the yarn so manufactured is captively consumed or is subjected to any other or further process.”
6. In this case, this Court also approved the earlier judgment in Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 644, (1996) 82 ELT 442 and it further held that the decision of this Court in the case of J.K Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 1987 Supp SCC 350 which Mr Dave also relied upon, and the observations in J.K Cotton Spg. case 1987 Supp SCC 350 were not at variance with the judgment of this Court in Bhilwara Spinners 1995 Supp (4) SCC 644, (1996) 82 ELT 442. In view of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Bhilwara 1995 Supp (4) SCC 644, (1996) 82 ELT 442 and Banswara Syntex (1996) 11 SCC 55, (1996) 88 ELT 645 we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. We are also of the opinion that the judgment of this Court in the case of Polyset Corpn. (2000) 10 SCC 241, (2000) 115 ELT 41 does not, in any way, conflict with the earlier two judgments and so far as the law relating to the stage at which single ply yarn is liable for duty is concerned, the judgments of this Court in Bhilwara 1995 Supp (4) SCC 644, (1996) 82 ELT 442 and Banswara Syntex (1996) 11 SCC 55, (1996) 88 ELT 645 will prevail.
7. Thus, in our opinion, so far as the questions involved in these appeals are concerned, they are concluded by the judgments of this Court in Bhilwara 1995 Supp (4) SCC 644, (1996) 82 ELT 442 and Banswara (1996) 11 SCC 55, (1996) 88 ELT 645. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in placing reliance on the same while rejecting the appeal of the appellants.
8. Following the said judgments of this Court in Bhilwara 1995 Supp (4) SCC 644, (1996) 82 ELT 442 and Banswara (1996) 11 SCC 55, (1996) 88 ELT 645 these appeals are dismissed.